MORE white Americans will fight and possibly die in any conflict in Iraq than at any time since the Vietnam war, despite the fact that a disproportionate number of blacks still join the armed services to escape poverty and unemployment.
A study by Northwest University in Illinois shows that while a high number of black recruits enlist to learn trades that will give them a post-military career in computers or administration, whites from the lower end of the economic spectrum tend to end up in frontline units like the infantry.
Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at the university, said yesterday: ''If anyone ends up complaining about battlefield deaths this time, it'll be poor rural whites. They're the new generation 'grunts', the majority behind the basic bayonet.''
During the US military's involvement in Vietnam, black power militants claimed, quite accurately, that more of their ethnic kin were put in harm's way in frontline combat than was justified by their share of population.
Blacks continue to serve in disproportionate numbers. They still make up 20% of the military establishment, but only 12% of the ethnic mix. The difference is that they volunteer for fewer battlefield jobs.
Of the army's 45,586 combat infantry, just 10.6%, and only 245 of the air force's 12,000 pilots - 2% - are black. The navy's carrier-borne air wings have a mere 2.5% non-white fliers.
Special forces show an even greater divide. A total of 196 of the 4278 Green Berets come from the black community.
Saudi border guards, meanwhile, yesterday arrested a Kuwaiti believed responsible for killing one American and critically wounding another in an ambush near a US military base, the official Saudi Press Agency reported.
The agency quoted an unidentified Saudi Interior Ministry official as saying the Kuwaiti, who was not named, was arrested early yesterday wile ''sneaking into Saudi Arabia from Kuwait''.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article